California TAC weighs seven road‑charging operational concepts, privacy and architecture options

The Road Charge Technical Advisory Committee on March 27 discussed seven operational concepts and multiple enabling technologies for a proposed California road‑usage charge pilot, focusing on which manual and automated reporting methods to include, how to protect privacy, and whether to structure the pilot as an open or closed system.

Shannon Crum, TAC presenter, told the committee: "We have 3 kind of high level questions that we want to address this afternoon before we adjourn." She framed the day's decisions around (1) whether to offer automated distance recording in addition to manual methods, (2) whether a GPS option should be offered in‑vehicle to simplify reporting, and (3) whether the pilot should use an open or closed system architecture.

Matthew Dorfman, TAC presenter, walked the committee through seven operational concepts and the technologies that could enable them. "Today, I'll present 7 operational concepts for road charging," he said, and described the concepts as combinations of two basic commodities — time or distance as the charge basis — and manual or automated reporting. The seven concepts discussed were: manual time permits (vignettes), automated engine‑run‑time measurement, mileage permits, manual odometer reporting (post‑payment), an odometer‑based prepay permit, automated odometer reporting without location, and automated mileage reporting with generalized location information.

Why it matters: committee members agreed the pilot must test options that are practical for users across California’s varied communities and technological access. Staff warned that smartphone‑based reporting would exclude people without smartphones: "Only about 60% of people in California have smartphones," Shannon said, and she noted large variation by age and income (more than 85% of people under 30 have smartphones; fewer than 20% of people over 65, based on a five‑year Census Bureau average with roughly an 8% margin of error). That drove discussion of multiple parallel methods so the pilot can include people without smartphones or reliable mobile connectivity.

Privacy and location: staff and members debated whether to collect GPS or other location data in‑vehicle and, if collected, how granular that data should be. Dorfman described an approach used elsewhere that would report only miles driven on public California roads as a single bucket and exclude out‑of‑state or private‑road mileage, preserving user privacy by avoiding precise trip traces. He also noted devices often include an option to disable recording of location data.

Fraud and enforcement: committee members pressed staff about fraud and evasion risks for odometer‑based and device‑based approaches. Dorfman noted digital odometer rollback tools are available and that odometer fraud has been the subject of recent enforcement actions; he said fraud‑mitigation strategies could include audits, random checks and cross‑reconciling fuel tax data if a fuel tax remains in place. On automated devices, he said devices can log unplug events and other anomalies; Oregon’s program and Germany’s heavy‑vehicle tolling system were cited as examples with established enforcement practices.

Technical options and cost: staff outlined four automated technology categories that can support automated reporting: plug‑in OBD‑II devices (usage‑based insurance style), smartphone apps that pair to the vehicle by Bluetooth and use odometer photos as a backup, embedded vehicle telematics (automaker systems), and heavier commercial tolling units used for trucks. Dorfman said, "These devices cost about $50 right now," noting economies of scale and insurer subsidies can reduce direct user cost. He also recounted the OBD‑II rollout history: the port was mandated by California ARB beginning in the mid‑1990s and became common on models after 1996, leaving a stock of older vehicles without OBD‑II ports.

Open vs. closed architecture: staff explained a closed system would contract with a single vendor for devices and account management, which can be easier to stand up but risks vendor lock‑in. An open system would define standards so multiple commercial account managers and device providers could participate, encouraging competition and innovation but requiring more upfront standards work and a minimum market size. Staff said the pilot could be used to test either approach and recommended work to define standards if the committee wants to evaluate an open model.

Next steps: staff told the TAC that agenda item 13 (following the presentations) would ask the committee to take actions on high‑level policy issues, and that the April meeting would revisit operational workflows from the user perspective to help narrow options. Committee members urged that the April materials be detailed enough that users and stakeholders can envision how each option would work in daily life.

The committee did not record any formal votes during the operational concepts presentation; members concluded the session by taking a break and preparing to consider formal action items later in the meeting.